Four paragraphs of interest:
A spokesman from ….that although it’s decision to deny Sezzle a licence to issue loans in the state did not expose the company to fines or penalties, it reserved it’s rights to pursue the company via other avenues.
The Department of Business Oversight is not precluded from doing so in additional actions, such as a resist and refrain order or a civil action for ancillary relief, the spokesman said.
(My comment civil action means court action, the USA loves this type of action, highest concentration of lawyers per head of population in the world.)
If a consumer uses Sezzle to finance a $35 purchase and was charged all fees provided under the user agreement, the consumer would have paid an equivalent annual percentage interest rate of 600%.
The regulator said Sezzle had been engaged in illegal unlicensed lending after it denied the company a licence which rival Afterpay had secured only seven weeks earlier, describing credit sales made by Sezzle’s partners as “not bona fide”.
Be the first to comment